Shouldn't you want the DCU to emphasize hull at the expense of shield/armor?

Counter Proposal: Shift shield/armor resistance increase to hull resistance increase.

1. Increase DCU resistance a bit from this current proposal so that the total EHP of ships stays about the same.
2. Decrease or remove shield/armor resistances to armor/shield.

Reason: Armor dudes have EANM's. Shield dudes have Power Diagnostic Systems.

as per CCP Darwin on reddit, he wanted us to post fits that might be affected. Granted, this isn't relating to the DCU, but webs/scram tiericide.

Can someone answer me this?

What is going to be the total hull resistance now? Since the T2 one was 60% in total and all ships get 33%, but the T2 is going to be dropped to 40%, does that mean 40% from 33% or 40% + 33%? Or something else?

Do you even math bro?

PS: the removal of the Internal Force Field Array and its 17 cpu and the nearest replacement being 20 CPU fucks this fit if you don't have Mining Upgrades V (or a CPU implant)

[Mackinaw, 2MLU]
Internal Force Field Array I
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Survey Scanner II
Upgraded Thermal Dissipation Amplifier I
Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5

The 'Radical' Damage Control is strictly better than the Internal Force Field Array I. It has the resistance stats of the DCUII and uses one less CPU than the IFA I. You will actually have an extra CPU with the fit. Also, the DCUII will be obsolete.

This is actually a pretty great change, especially the passive module-ness!

However, for the love of Bob, PLEASE make the Compact DC use 17 CPU instead of 20! I have a LOT of ships that currently use the Internal Force Field Array which is 17 CPU and this will totally break them with no alternative (way overpriced Radicals or **** Civilians are not alternatives). If you need to drop the resist benefit a tiny bit to justify reducing the CPU by 3 I'm totally fine with that.

You might have missed the news, but you don't need the DC anymore. Throw it away and put on a tracking enhancer or something similar, if you really insist on the extra resists then you now have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. I don't think some people are quite getting how fundamental this change really is going to be to ship fitting. You could basically minus a low slot on every fit as you knew it that was where the DC would go and you would be stupid to think otherwise (barring a few niche fits).

Ahh, good point. I assumed it was a new module since I've never seen it before. It would seem, then, that some points made are somewhat justified.

Anything that makes a dcu less of a "must always fit" module gets my vote. It's boring when almost all fits need to have one lowslot allocated for that dcu. It's just too good, currently.

Right, so do that via the stats NOT the fitting. Fitting doesn't apply evenly across the games available hulls, punishing some more than others.

boo passive DCU.

btw what will happen to the hecate hull resistance bonus?

Well, if you can't touch the fitting and have to do it via stats, you'd just have to flat-out nerf Damage Controls across the board. Hard. I'd be fine with that (like I said, I'm tired of it being a must-fit module and I guess CCP is also), but I think that sort of nerf would have large portions of the playerbase screaming bloody murder.

Right now, what they are trying to do is nerf the modules themselves, but counterbalance that with a buff to hull structure. I think that's a fairly reasonable path to take, honestly, even though that too will cause lots of extra rebalancing. A flat-out nerf to DCUs (with nothing to compensate) would also throw lots of balance out of whack, so there is no easy, problem-free solution here.

So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?

But the freighter buff is excessive and unwarranted.

So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking. Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?

So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?

I think this thread is more about "are we killing some fits with this change?" and "do you think making it passive is a good idea", rather than talking about freight balance and ganking profitability

So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.

Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?

This thread is precisely about nerfing suicide ganking, the OP even says so, stop deleting posts to try to hide dissent.

See that makes sense to me.

But then why not just buff freighters structure HP rather than changing a module that affects almost all ships, and then add some knee-jerk reaction like changing to base HP of ALL SHIPS to compensate for it?

I know the answer but I feel like I'd be rude to say this was a make-work project for some bored devs.

I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted